Godstud wrote:Russiagate might not find much actual collusion, but it sure is finding a lot of criminal activity around Trump. It's a success, no matter what it turns up, at this point.

The Russia investigation has so far turned up a trove of chicanery. It has been shown beyond a doubt that the essence of America's system/government was attacked by a hostile government abetted by treasonous activity. There were no bombs or bullets involved but it was an insidious attack arguably more devastating than bombs and bullets. Some folks have a rather myopic point of view/vision and feel that absent a notarized and signed letter from Donald authorizing such interference that the whole investigation is a waste of time and that everything is just fine. This is to be expected.

"When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money." H.L.Mencken

Yes there is. From Trump's public encouragement of Russia to hack Hillary's/DNC computer systems at a rally to the in-person meeting between Manifort/Trump jr. with Russians (which Steve Bannon rightly called 'treasonous'). Even an email where the Russians said they "helped" the Trump campaign.

It's no more debatable than G. Bush & T. Blair both publicly & privately conspiring to attack Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors turn up or votes occur in the UNSC.

There is no evidence Clinton's emails were even hacked. And certainly none they were hacked by Russia, who apparently gave them to Wikileaks, an org that has released a lot of negative state secrets about Russia too.

What email?

It's no more debatable than G. Bush & T. Blair both publicly & privately conspiring to attack Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors turn up or votes occur in the UNSC.

There's evidence for this though, in the Hutton inquiry or whichever one it was that revealed Blair wrote to Bush months before the invasion saying he would support Iraq whether there were WMDs or nay.

Why must you people insist on pushing something that is without evidence? Why are you so invested in this charade?

redcarpet wrote:The evidence is public, I gave 2 examples. Trump publicly calling for hacking, and the Russians saying in an email they provided "help" to the Trump campaign.

Your idea of evidence seems to be similar to the Salem judges. No one can believe Trump’s comment was serious unless their mind is totally closed. Shall we see if he can breathe underwater for 30 minutes to prove his innocence?

I dream of the United Citystates of Earth, where each Citystate has a standardized border such as one whole degree of Latitude by one whole degree of Longitude.

skinster wrote:I know you are psychologically invested in this story, but there is no evidence for the original accusations. There wasn't at the time and there isn't today. Time to give up this religion, jimmy.

I am real old, come from a long bygone era when people were able to agree to disagree ( ) and senators and congress people voted for what they thought was best as opposed to letting others do their thinking for them and taking orders lest their "funding" be taken away from them.. This obviously does not happen these days. Think it over Thin One, maybe we can give it a go.

Merry Christmas!

"When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money." H.L.Mencken

redcarpet wrote:The evidence is public, I gave 2 examples. Trump publicly calling for hacking, and the Russians saying in an email they provided "help" to the Trump campaign.

Trump never called for anyone to hack any emails. The accusation of Russian hacking was already out there by the Democrats at that time. Trump was simply being sarcastic by calling on Russia, if they were listening, to turn over the reported 33,000 missing emails that had apparently been destroyed in the Clinton email cover-up. The Russians have never admitted to hacking into anything. WikiLeaks founder released negative information about the Clinton campaign that was true and the voting public needed to know. He also said he did not get that information from Russia. The Russians did very little to help Trump and all reports say there is no evidence any votes were changed because of Russian attempts to influence our election. Even Obama said they can't do it, and he knew they were trying to influence the election all the time, just like they have done in previous elections and have continued to do, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies.

You posted an article by the originator of a lot of fake news about Donald Trump.The following is the video of what Trump actually said. He did not tell Russia to hack anyone, but if they did he hopes they find Clinton's missing emails.

redcarpet wrote:The evidence is public, I gave 2 examples. Trump publicly calling for hacking, and the Russians saying in an email they provided "help" to the Trump campaign.

The evidence is public apparently, but you can't present it. OK. I'm convinced! Are you interested in buying some WMDs by any chance?

jimjam wrote:I am real old, come from a long bygone era when people were able to agree to disagree ( ) and senators and congress people voted for what they thought was best as opposed to letting others do their thinking for them and taking orders lest their "funding" be taken away from them.. This obviously does not happen these days. Think it over Thin One, maybe we can give it a go.

Merry Christmas!

Not sure what this has to do with my question of why you're invested in something that doesn't have any evidence to back it up. I mean, I get you hate Trump, I do too, but that doesn't = believing the mass psychosis that is Russiagate. This lie was brought to you by the Clinton campaign which needed distractions from its own corruption during the election, which is what really made Clinton lose the election, even if she won the popular vote.

Merry Christmas to ye.

Igor Antunov wrote:This thread will have to be moved to the conspiracy section, alongside most future MSM articles, the way the fantasy narrative is breaking down as we speak.

The emails are no less public than the US Constitution, Skinster. Obduracy and procrastination doesn't fool me. You can read them, a Google search will bring them up. But you'd have to ignore your confirmation bias light...….